Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00191.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 43 During his deposition, Epstein failed to answer questions or produce documents in response to a Rule 45 subpoena in the New York case. The instant motion seeks to compel production from Epstein in three areas, detailed more fully in the Motion to Compel, based on his improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment in refusing to comply with the subpoena. Epstein’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment was invalid for several reasons, as discussed in detail in the Motion to Compel. One of those reasons, however, goes to the instant request to file the motion to compel under seal and to place the docket under seal. In should be noted that the entire deposition of Epstein is confidential, having been placed under the confidentiality order that exists in the case. Il. LEGAL ARGUMENT The parties agree this case should be placed under seal because of the need for confidentiality. There is no valid invocation of the Fifth Amendment when there is no threat to self-incrimination, and there can be no threat to self-incrimination if the government is not aware of the information Ms, Giuffre seeks pursuant to her valid Rule 45 subpoena. Because Ms. Giuffre seeks to have all of the relevant proceedings to her motion to compel - including the motion itself - be placed under seal at this time, the Government will not be aware of Epstein’s disclosure of materials, much less be in position to even file a motion to attempt alter the protective order. In such circumstances, Epstein faces no “real and substantial hazard” of his act of producing documents to Ms. Giuffre*s counsel incriminating himself. See United States v. Kowalik, 809 P. Supp. 1571, 1577 (S.D. Fla. 1992), aff'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993), and aff'd, 12 F.3d 218 (11th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, by placing this case under seal, this Court can grant Ms. Giuffre’s motion to compel and direct Epstein to produce the relevant documents over his